(NOTE: Wicca isn't Satanism and Wiccans
don't believe in Satan. Since I
know this, thanks for not emailing me and telling me what I already
know.)

How The Wiccans Try To Hijack
Joan of Arc Via History Revision

Perhaps
the most blatant form of history revision is when Wiccans and Neopagans
try to claim Joan of Arc as one of their own. These ideas
stem from the writings of a quack anthropologist named Margret Murray.
Murray lived to be 100 and claimed to be a witch herself in
her final years even allowing herself to be initiated into Gerald
Gardner's original Wicca coven. It seems claiming to be a Wiccan must
have fulfilled some kind of life long fantasy for the old gal. At any
rate, it shows she had an axe to grind, which explains why
she would falsify her data.

Murray's ridiculous books were
published in the 1920's and
became widely read among occultists. Soon, people began forming
witch-cults of their own based on Murray's books. These groups were the
forerunners of Gerald Gardner's Wicca covens. They became a sort of a
proto-Wicca.When Murray was finally initiated into Gardner's
nudie (or "skyclad") coven, it was her delusion coming full
circle!

Murray claims Joan of
Arc, executed for witchcraft, really
was one of these "Dianic witches". The first problem with this is Joan
of Arc wasn't executed for witchcraft, she was killed for heresy (and
even then, it was a trumped up charge). In order to try to link Joan of
Arc to witchcraft, Murray made the claim that St. Joan is never
recorded as having used the phrase "Our Lord" in the original language
of the condemnation trial transcript, and never identified "the King of
Heaven" as Jesus Christ.

Both of these claims are lies.
In fact, in all of the five early copies
of the trial transcripts do quote her as saying "Nostre Seigneur" in
the medieval French which means"Our Lord"! In the first set of charges
there is a copy of a letter in which Joan of Arc places the names
"Jesus" and "Mary" at the top. Joan of Arc also identifies the King of
Heaven as "the son of Saint Mary", or in other words, Jesus Christ. In
another set of letters, one of these, dated July 17, 1429, contains the
phrase "King Jesus, the King of Heaven".

Another one dated two
weeks earlier makes another reference
to "King Jesus" Yet another, dated March 23, 1430, threatens to lead a
crusading army against a group called the Hussites unless they return
to orthodox Roman Catholicism, which Joan describes as,"the original
Light". This hardly seems to be the words of a Pagan or witch! Murray
claimed to have read all these documents. Scholars today have
determined either Murray lied about reading them, or she read them and
then lied about what they contained.. Murray like Leland before her,
mentions Diana being worshiped by her fictitious witch-cult.

A Roman Catholic Bishop noted
in an Edict called Canon Episcopi that
some people claiming to have practiced witchcraft had stated that "they
flew with the goddess Diana". From this document Murray and Leland have
created a goddess worshiping witch-cult. Canon Epscopi, rather than
mentioning some kind of condemnation on Goddess worshipers, instead
warns Christians not to believe in witchcraft because the stories of
flying witches flying through the night air and such are (obviously)
fantasy. It's certain the Roman Catholic clergy would have recognized a
sect of goddess worshipers and would have called them such had one been
in their midst.

Why then is there no mention of
a cult of Diana worshipers, or
worshipers of any goddess for that matter? Because there wasn't one.
The Roman Catholic church would have mentioned such a cult., had one
existed. But why did the alleged witches mention Diana? One reason
could be because there probably existed some spells that contained the
name Diana in them, and this could be why Diana's name is mentioned in
Canon Episcopi. Stephen Flowers mentions in his book Gaderbok,
An Icelandic Grimorie
that in North Carolina
in the 1970's, a woman turned up who used the
names of "Jesus, God, and Thor" in a healing prayer...assuming the
story can be believed. The woman was not an Odinist, and considered
herself a Christian (although she obviously had some strange ideas).
The name of "Thor" in the prayer is a throwback to when her ancestors
worshiped Thor. It could be these women knew Diana's name from a spell
that had survived. But more likely, these women repeated the name Diana
because they heard it mentioned at church.

Even though no one outside the
clergy owned a Bible before the
invention of the printing press, the scriptures were read allowed
in
church during services. The worship of Diana is specifically denounced
in the Bible, in the book of Acts. Act 19:24-27

"For there was a certain
man named Demetrius, a
silver-worker, who made silver boxes for the images of Diana, and gave
no small profit to the workmen;Whom he got together, with other workmen
of the same trade, and said
to them, Men, it is clear that from this
business we get our wealth.And you see, for it has come to your ears,
that not only at Ephesus, but almost all through Asia, this Paul has
been teaching numbers of people and turning them away, saying that
those are not gods who are made by men's hands: And there is danger,
not only that our trade may be damaged in the opinion of men, but that
the holy place of the great goddess Diana may be no longer honored, and
that she to whom all Asia and the world give worship, will be put down
from her high position."

Let's
remember that Gnostic thinking inverts and perverts what Orthodox
Christian thinking holds to be true. It is probably no coincidence that
people wanting to practice witchcraft would call on Diana, because the
Bible is against it. If goddess worship is an indicator of Witchcraft,
then Joan of Arc certainly does NOT seem guilty of being a Wiccan or
witch.. English documents leave little room for doubt as to the actual
motive behind her trial. There are still in existence financial records
proving that the English government paid and summoned the
judges and
assessors from people loyal to the King of England.

Although the chief judge,
Pierre Cauchon, was French, he was a salaried
official of the English occupation government and appointed Bishop
through secular patrons. The records of eyewitnesses repeatedly say
Joan of Arc was prosecuted for heresy solely because the English wanted
to exact revenge for her army's victories against them. Even
http://usminc.org/images/joan_miniature.jpgJoan's judges dropped the
charges of witchcraft before the final set of 12 articles were drawn
up.

Contrary to Murray's claims,
she had the support of most of the other
clergy throughout Europe, such as Jacques Gelu (Archbishop of Embrun), Jean
Gerson, and others. Her friend Pierronne was executed by the same
pro-English faction - not for witchcraft (which was never included in
the charges) but merely for having stated that Joan was a devout
Christian, which angered the English and their allies. Murray
consistently makes ridiculous statements founded on a frivolous things
such as Joan's name, stating "Joan" is a Witch name. Joan was probably
the most common female name during that time period from the records
that we have from that period, not just among "witches". It would be
like saying a Mexican named "Jesus" must be the Christ returned based
solely on his name, or everyone named "Adolph" must therefore be a Nazi.

Another example of
Murray's fabrications is how she
deliberately twists statements made by Joan of Arc into something they
were not. For instance, in the surviving documents, Joan made fun of
Friar Sequin's accent as a a harmless bit of humor, and traditionally
historians have viewed it as such. Sequin himself must not have been
offended by her joke, since he approved her, and even declared that she
was sent by God. Murray however misinterprets Joan's quotes to Friar
Sequin to pretend that her comments showed "contempt for the clergy"!
Like Leland, she wanted to find her witch cult very badly.

The Roman Catholic Church used
the term "Maiden" ("La Pucelle" -
"virgin") when it canonized Joan of Arc as a "Holy Maiden". It is a
standard Roman Catholic category for female saints. However, once again
Murray takes a leap off the deep end and claims that the term could
have "no other meaning" than a Pagan identification! Murray seems to
completely disregard Joan's own explanation that she had promised her
saints to keep her virginity, which made her a maiden, NOT because she
was some sort of a member of an underground Pagan cult!

Joan of Arc was a person
who had a sincere belief of the
Christian faith of her day. She was falsely accused and killed for
political reasons. For Margaret Murray to make these outrages claims is
to slander the memory of a great Christian martyr. Christians
everywhere should be outraged at the allegation! In another instance in
her book, Murray claims Gilles de Rais was also a witch and a close
associate of Joan of Arc. Rais was also known as "Bluebeard", because
of the bluish-grey tint to his beard. The documents concerning Joan of
Arc barely make any mention him, and are hardly evidence of being a
close associate.

Rais was likewise never accused
of being a member of a Pagan group. The
charges brought against him revolved around the murder of large numbers
of children., which is why even to this day child killers are sometimes
called "Bluebeards". Rais said he had sacrificed children on the
command of a "demon" named "Barron". This is sounds more like what we
today would call a 'Satanic cult", not a Pagan religion. Even though
Ba'al and Molech worship involved infant sacrifice, there was no
evidence to suggest that these cults ever existed in France.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest Rais was a member of some
kind of surviving cult of either of these (by then) long forgotten
gods.

More than likely, Rais was a
serial killer not unlike David Berkowitz
or John Wayne Gasey, not a "Satanist" at all. In many cases murderers
claim they were compelled to kill by voices in their heads, like Rais
claiming a demon told him to kill. Rais himself, as the evidence also
proves, said that he didn't adopt this mentality until some point after
Joan's death. Joan of Arc had nothing to do with the child murders of
Rais, just as she had nothing to do with the later treason committed by
another of her commanders, Duke Jean II d'Alencon. In fact, many
eyewitnesses confirmed that she tried to force all of her commanders to
"live as good Catholics" while she was with them.

The Real Joan Of ArcThe real Joan of Arc was a
woman who was deeply sincere in her beliefs.
She was not a Wiccan, Pagan, or sorceress. She was a sincere
Christian. Joan was killed for her beliefs for political
reasons, not because she was a "witch". She could not have
possible have been a Wiccan since Wicca was not created until 1954.

At this point in life, I'm an
agnostic, so I don't really have a dog in
this fight. But calling Joan of Arc a "Pagan" completely inaccurate,
and just plain wrong. It's hardly fair to such a brave young woman to
try to re-brand her a herectic when clearly she was a devoted Christian
who died for what she believed in!

Copyright
(c) Uncommon Sense

No
part of this website may be reproduced by any means in any way shape or
form without express written consent of the owner. Some
of the materials on this web site are copyrighted by others, and are
made available here for educational purposes such as
teaching, scholarship, and research FREE OF CHARGE. Title 17,
Ch.
1, Sec.
107 of
the US Copyright law states that such Fair Use "is not an infringement
of copyright"(click here to read
it
all).
Links to
external web
sites
do not necessarily constitute endorsements, but are provided
as
aids to research. NONE OF THESE MATERIALS ARE TO BE SOLD. All
HTML is Copyrighted by Uncommon Sense Media. .